Marianne Luban
re: Evidence for the Length of Reigns of Akhenaten's Success
Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:13

Werner wrote:

"Concerning the statement "Tut's parents were a brother and a sister", I talked to Pääbo a few months ago about the pharao DNA analysis by Pusch and Zink. Pääbo thought that it is generally known that the analysis is worthless and that the whole thing is a media hype of no scientific interest anyhow. I tried to convince him that it has historical importance and should not be left in limbo, but I do not know if I succeeded."

I would find this an extraordinary statement on the part of Paabo. How can it be "generally known" that the analysis is "worthless" when it is already "generally known" [by Egyptology] that some of the mummies were related in just the way that they proved to be scientifically?? The mummy from KV35 called "the Elder Lady" has been suspected as being Queen Tiye for many years. If DNA showed that she was, indeed, the daughter of Yuya and Thuya==how is that worthless? Amenhotep III was not an unidentified mummy. He was marked by a docket by an ancient reburial commission. He and Queen Tiye being the grandparents of Tutankhamun was not exactly a shock. So the accuracy of the DNA testing, its results, cannot be "worthless" because these mummies were not simply cadavers about whom nothing was known. I would say that, had they proved not to be related in just the way they were, I would have suspected that the results were "worthless". What does Paabo know about the royals at the end of Dynasty 18? Maybe it's just "of no scientific interest" to him!

I am sick and tired of people denigrating this study. Anybody who knows anything about autosomal DNA could tell, at a glance, that the eight-marker results look just as one would expect, with the same alleles being recombined throughout the generations--like they would be in any modern family. And that, in the case of a child of incest, Tut has those diploid alleles one might also expect. I am also sick and tired of Egyptologists pretending to know better than Zink and Pusch. It took me no more than a couple of pages to show Gabolde how he was wrong in concluding the KV55 individual and the KV35 Younger Lady were "cousins" instead of a brother and sister. Does he care? Probably not.

Just the other day another Egyptologist announced, on a site that he runs, that Amenhotep III was the father of Tutankhamen, in his opinion. The 2010 research was not valid, in his eyes, because he believes that a match at 13 markers are the minimum in paternity testing--and the Cairo study only used 8 markers or loci. I tried to explain how Amenhotep III had managed to be eliminated at one of the loci--in spades--and it only takes one. The kit used by Zink and Pusch was the best one for working with ancient or degraded DNA. They made the right choice, even though it provided only 8 markers. This Egyptologist said he did not wish to discuss the matter with me and even censored my post in which I made the most salient point--just nuked it. If he publishes something with that theory, it should take me no more than a couple of pages to prove just how wrong he is. It's that simple--when you understand it.

  • I agree that the "tiny garment" is important, see may mails 12 and 13 April 2010 under this heading. Concerning the statement "Tut's parents were a brother and a sister", I talked to Pääbo a few... more
    • re: Evidence for the Length of Reigns of Akhenaten's Success — Marianne Luban, Mon Jan 28 10:13
      • re: Zink and PuschRich McQuillen, Tue Jan 29 19:04
        It looks like this is the study being discussed, from 2010. I'm playing catch up.'s_Family
Click here to receive daily updates